Re: IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2

* Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
> In article ,
> Rick wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:57:28 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>> > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9970262-16.html
>> >
>> >
>> > IBM won't open source DB2.
>> >
>> > It was therefore no surprise to see IBM quickly follow up ZDNet's
>> > article with a blunt statement: "IBM has no plans to open source DB2."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>>
>> Are you trying to make some kind of point?
>
> He not only is trying, he succeeded. Maybe you should read the earlier
> discussion of DB2 on this group from a few days ago?

What is his point, then, Tim?

That someone floated at trial-balloon as a leak?

Zeke is a troll, and a somewhat bad one (except he succeeds well with
Rick) at that.

--
Fortune finishes the great quotations, #12
Those who can, do. Those who can't, write the instructions.

Re: IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ezekiel
wrote
on Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:07:40 -0400 <48892$486145fd$7224@news.teranews.com>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
> news:m0s7j5-c19.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick
>>
>> wrote
>> on Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:23:22 -0500
>> :
>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:57:28 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9970262-16.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IBM won't open source DB2.
>>>>
>>>> It was therefore no surprise to see IBM quickly follow up ZDNet's
>>>> article with a blunt statement: "IBM has no plans to open source DB2."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>>>
>>> Are you trying to make some kind of point?
>>>
>>
>> One can guess. Apparently Ezekiel is of the opinion
>> that closed-source software such as DB2 is superior
>> to open-source efforts such as PostgreSQL, MySQL,
>> Hypersonic, or Cloudscape.
>
> I'm not familiar with Hypersonic

Light-duty SQL data storage/retrieval system shipped with what
is now Glassfish. It appears to have originated from IBM, though
I'm not certain now. IBM is now sunsetting it, and Apache Derby
is its new name.http://www-306.ibm.com/software/data/cloudscape/

With my luck the Cloudscape DBMS mutated into Hypersonic,
just to confuse me. :-)
> But DB2 is definitely
> superior to Postgres and MySQL. It's not even close. It's like debating
> whether a Dodge Neon is comparable to a Mercedes S-class. Sure... the Neon
> is "cheaper" (as in less expensive) and probably gets better mileage. But
> nobody will take you seriously if you attempt to claim that the Neon is
> better than the big Benz.

Thank you for the analogy, but you're going to have to do
better than that. :-) Why, exactly, is DB2 superior?
Be specific.

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
news:dh38j5-dha.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ezekiel
>
> wrote
> on Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:07:40 -0400
> <48892$486145fd$7224@news.teranews.com>:
>>
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
>> message
>> news:m0s7j5-c19.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick
>>>
>>> wrote
>>> on Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:23:22 -0500
>>> :
>>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:57:28 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9970262-16.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> IBM won't open source DB2.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was therefore no surprise to see IBM quickly follow up ZDNet's
>>>>> article with a blunt statement: "IBM has no plans to open source
>>>>> DB2."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>>>>
>>>> Are you trying to make some kind of point?
>>>>
>>>
>>> One can guess. Apparently Ezekiel is of the opinion
>>> that closed-source software such as DB2 is superior
>>> to open-source efforts such as PostgreSQL, MySQL,
>>> Hypersonic, or Cloudscape.
>>
>> I'm not familiar with Hypersonic
>
> Light-duty SQL data storage/retrieval system shipped with JBoss.
> http://www.hsqldb.org/
>
>> or Cloudscape.
>
> Light-duty SQL data storage/retrieval system shipped with what
> is now Glassfish. It appears to have originated from IBM, though
> I'm not certain now. IBM is now sunsetting it, and Apache Derby
> is its new name.
> http://www-306.ibm.com/software/data/cloudscape/
>
> With my luck the Cloudscape DBMS mutated into Hypersonic,
> just to confuse me. :-)
>
>> But DB2 is definitely
>> superior to Postgres and MySQL. It's not even close. It's like debating
>> whether a Dodge Neon is comparable to a Mercedes S-class. Sure... the
>> Neon
>> is "cheaper" (as in less expensive) and probably gets better mileage.
>> But
>> nobody will take you seriously if you attempt to claim that the Neon is
>> better than the big Benz.
>
> Thank you for the analogy, but you're going to have to do
> better than that. :-) Why, exactly, is DB2 superior?
> Be specific.

Rather than list various specs that aren't that interesting or important
(many are usually overkill anyway) let's look at a real issue that faces
businesses and organizations. Out in the real world it is unheard of for a
large organization to simply have "a database" where everything they need
is magically stored in this one database. It would save these companies
millions a year if things were like this but it's basically impossible.

Out in the real world the customer's database is a core component of their
IT infrastructure. But a customers "data" is highly distributed. Their IT
infrastructure contains dozens, often hundreds to 'data sources' and it all
needs to interface with their database.

Databases can be "federated" so that very large and very complex queries
can be run across multiple data sources. In some fantasy world all data
simply exists in one database so this would be trivial. In the real world
data is distributed across many sources, in many different formats and in
systems from many different vendors.

DB2 supports proper federation via Information Integrator so a complex SQL
query can be issued across multiple datasets in multiple formats in
products from multiple vendors.

Here's a list of the couple of dozen different data sources that can be
federated with DB2.

The following items indicate features that the FEDERATED storage engine
does and does not support:

The remote server must be a MySQL server. Support by FEDERATED for other
database engines may be added in the future.

Businesses don't select one database over another because one database can
access 32 petabytes of diskspace and another can only access 16 petabytes.
Real business and real organizations (ie - Not some guy running a pizza
shop) select a database based on how well it fits into their enterprise.
And their enterprise is a complicated mess of data that lives in
dozens/hundreds of different applications.

I won't even go into scalability. And I don't mean some lab contrived
scalability that's the equivalent of using MIPS (meaningless instructions
per second) to measure the performance of a computer. In complex real world
situations DB2 kicks the snot out of MySQL. When it comes to product
maturity, this little company named IBM (who "might" have some experience
with databases) has been working on DB2 for twice as long as something like
MySQL has been in existence.

When you see some lame-o news story from Schestowitz on how some car maker
is now using MySQL keep this in mind. This company will use MySQL somewhere
in their organization for a niche purpose. But somewhere in this company
there is some central place where *everything* gets consolidated and all of
the data is collected. It's this central heart of their IT system that runs
something like DB2.

> When you see some lame-o news story from Schestowitz on how some car maker
> is now using MySQL keep this in mind. This company will use MySQL somewhere
> in their organization for a niche purpose. But somewhere in this company
> there is some central place where *everything* gets consolidated and all of
> the data is collected. It's this central heart of their IT system that runs
> something like DB2.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Moshe Goldfarb.
wrote
on Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:54:48 -0400:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:41:59 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>
>> When you see some lame-o news story from Schestowitz on how some car maker
>> is now using MySQL keep this in mind. This company will use MySQL somewhere
>> in their organization for a niche purpose. But somewhere in this company
>> there is some central place where *everything* gets consolidated and all of
>> the data is collected. It's this central heart of their IT system that runs
>> something like DB2.
>
> DB2 = Elephant Gun.
> MySQL = Pea Shooter.
>
> Use the proper tool for the application.
>

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:28:09 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Moshe Goldfarb.
>
> wrote
> on Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:54:48 -0400
> :
>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:41:59 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>
>>> When you see some lame-o news story from Schestowitz on how some car maker
>>> is now using MySQL keep this in mind. This company will use MySQL somewhere
>>> in their organization for a niche purpose. But somewhere in this company
>>> there is some central place where *everything* gets consolidated and all of
>>> the data is collected. It's this central heart of their IT system that runs
>>> something like DB2.
>>
>> DB2 = Elephant Gun.
>> MySQL = Pea Shooter.
>>
>> Use the proper tool for the application.
>>
>
> And MS SQL Server? Is it a thrown rock or a howitzer?

It depends.
If you are cataloging a CD collection is it better to use DB2 or MYSQL?

Re: IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2

Rick writes:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:55:32 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> "Rick" wrote in message
>> news:toydnctQAcaau_zVnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@supernews.co m...
>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:42:04 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article ,
>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:57:28 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9970262-16.html
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > IBM won't open source DB2.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > It was therefore no surprise to see IBM quickly follow up ZDNet's
>>>>> > article with a blunt statement: "IBM has no plans to open source
>>>>> > DB2."
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you trying to make some kind of point?
>>>>
>>>> He not only is trying, he succeeded. Maybe you should read the
>>>> earlier discussion of DB2 on this group from a few days ago?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>> He posted an article with no explanation or comment.
>>
>> Exactly what part of "IBM says no to open sourcing DB2" do you find so
>> confusing that it requires explanation?
>>
>
> OK.. so IBM said they weren't open sourcing DB2. So what?

Is Rick now apologising for fellow "advocates" telling lies about IBM's
intentions? Wonders never cease!

--
"Of course, by the time Gnash gets its act together, we'll
probably all have to start all over again with Silverlight
(or Moonlight)."
-- The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy

Re: IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2

Rick writes:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:11:51 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> "Rick" wrote in message
>> news:OIWdnQPkzJtuqfzVnZ2dnUVZ_qjinZ2d@supernews.co m...
>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:04:32 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Rick" wrote in message
>>>> news:toydncVQAcYnuvzVnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@supernews.co m...
>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:55:32 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Rick" wrote in message
>>>>>> news:toydnctQAcaau_zVnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@supernews.co m...
>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:42:04 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article ,
>>>>>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:57:28 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9970262-16.html
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > IBM won't open source DB2.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > It was therefore no surprise to see IBM quickly follow up
>>>>>>>>> > ZDNet's article with a blunt statement: "IBM has no plans to
>>>>>>>>> > open source DB2."
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you trying to make some kind of point?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He not only is trying, he succeeded. Maybe you should read the
>>>>>>>> earlier discussion of DB2 on this group from a few days ago?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He posted an article with no explanation or comment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly what part of "IBM says no to open sourcing DB2" do you find
>>>>>> so confusing that it requires explanation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> OK.. so IBM said they weren't open sourcing DB2. So what?
>>>>
>>>> So you can understand a 7 word sentence. Good.
>>>>
>>>> A couple of days ago it was posted here that IBM might open source
>>>> DB2.
>>>
>>> So you assume I saw the post and or/read the thread.
>>
>> It's remarkable how you *never* see any of the 100's of posts that
>> Schestowitz makes where he blabs on about something completely unrelated
>> or makes posts with no commentary.
>
> I didn't say I haven't seen Roy's posts. What makes you think I read
> every one? In reality, I read very few of them.
>
> >But the 2-3 threads that I start each
>> week get a response from you with either a "So what?" or "He posted an
>> article with no explanation or comment."
>
> Well, when you post something, maybe you should make some sort of comment
> so people have some sort of idea what point you are trying to make.

What part of IBM not open sourcing DB2 escapes you Rick?

I was tempted to type "Ricktard" there, but, well, you just don't really
deserve it since you really dont seem to realise how stupid you appear.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Moshe Goldfarb.
wrote
on Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:18:40 -0400 <1gqluhoi37rlz.3zfq5mfnj3q6.dlg@40tude.net>:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:28:09 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Moshe Goldfarb.
>>
>> wrote
>> on Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:54:48 -0400
>> :
>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:41:59 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> When you see some lame-o news story from Schestowitz on how some car maker
>>>> is now using MySQL keep this in mind. This company will use MySQL somewhere
>>>> in their organization for a niche purpose. But somewhere in this company
>>>> there is some central place where *everything* gets consolidated and all of
>>>> the data is collected. It's this central heart of their IT system that runs
>>>> something like DB2.
>>>
>>> DB2 = Elephant Gun.
>>> MySQL = Pea Shooter.
>>>
>>> Use the proper tool for the application.
>>>
>>
>> And MS SQL Server? Is it a thrown rock or a howitzer?
>
> It depends.
> If you are cataloging a CD collection is it better to use DB2 or MYSQL?
>
> Please stop bringing minutia into the debate.
> It's getting tiresome replying to your obvious time wasting tactics.
>
> IOW deal on a higher level.
> Assume a few things for a change.
>

The assumption is that MS SQL is a howitzer, then;
certainly it is designed to be, though one might
quibble as to whether it blows the opposition out
of the water -- or just blows up. ;-)

Of course, there's an interesting set of issues regarding
standardization -- but never mind that, MS SQL is the standard
anyway, it's just that the ISO/ANSI committees don't know
it yet. ;-)

In any event, I believe MySql is underpowered, but reliable
enough (certainly $EMPLOYER uses it in some areas).
PostgreSQL is very reliable though I don't know how it
compares to Oracle, DB2, or MS SQL Server, and I'm probably
the only one who uses it at all.

Part of the issue is the sheer resources of hardware
one might need to access hundreds of terabytes of data.
A desktop PC might have no problem with that access if
one has a proper hardware interface to a RAID rack, but
there's heftier equipment available.

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
news:9ij8j5-ihd.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Moshe Goldfarb.
>
> wrote
> on Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:54:48 -0400
> :
>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:41:59 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>
>>> When you see some lame-o news story from Schestowitz on how some car
>>> maker
>>> is now using MySQL keep this in mind. This company will use MySQL
>>> somewhere
>>> in their organization for a niche purpose. But somewhere in this
>>> company
>>> there is some central place where *everything* gets consolidated and
>>> all of
>>> the data is collected. It's this central heart of their IT system that
>>> runs
>>> something like DB2.
>>
>> DB2 = Elephant Gun.
>> MySQL = Pea Shooter.
>>
>> Use the proper tool for the application.
>>
>
> And MS SQL Server? Is it a thrown rock or a howitzer?

It's a gun that is very easy to configure and administer. It's also a
popular product that's growing at a 17% rate. It fills a nice market
position for people who need full featured RDMS with minimal administration
costs. Those who have ridiculously complicated or gigantic database needs
should certainly use Oracle or DB2. But many small to mid-sized business
don't need that sort of overkill so SQL server is actually a good solution
for them.

Do your own homework Rick. Google is your friend. If you can figure out
how to use it.

--
"True. Due to a lack of competition, there essentially have been no
improvements to Microsoft's operating system and office software. It
just works."
-- High Plains Thumper in comp.os.linux.advocacy

Re: IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2

Linonut wrote:
>Zeke is a troll, and a somewhat bad one (except he succeeds well with
>Rick) at that.

It seems to me that he's quite successful and is constantly getting
rewarded for his behavior. Ghost found it necessary to explain that
"Linux being used in surveillance systems doesn't mean Linux is bad".
Why such an obvious thing needs to be explained, I don't know...

Re: IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2

On 2008-06-24, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ezekiel
>
> wrote
>> But DB2 is definitely
>> superior to Postgres and MySQL. It's not even close. It's like debating
>> whether a Dodge Neon is comparable to a Mercedes S-class. Sure... the Neon
>> is "cheaper" (as in less expensive) and probably gets better mileage. But
>> nobody will take you seriously if you attempt to claim that the Neon is
>> better than the big Benz.
>
> Thank you for the analogy, but you're going to have to do
> better than that. :-) Why, exactly, is DB2 superior?
> Be specific.

Another bloody car analogy... yechhh!

As far as I'm aware, you choose a database system to suit your purposes.
DB2 may suit some uses, postgres or MySQL might suit others. They aren't
cars.

On 2008-06-25, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In any event, I believe MySql is underpowered, but reliable
> enough (certainly $EMPLOYER uses it in some areas).
> PostgreSQL is very reliable though I don't know how it
> compares to Oracle, DB2, or MS SQL Server, and I'm probably
> the only one who uses it at all.

Don't feel so alone, Ghost. I've been using PostgreSQL for a decade now.
I've got a small database of around a million records and it handles
this perfectly. I've never used it on a database spanning hundreds of
millions of records though. It would be fun to optimise such a database.

Erm no. As I said, as have others, go and Google it up. The fact you are
too stupid or too lazy to remember a thread from a few days ago is
neither here nor there to me.

--
"We will never allow an event like an election reverse our
independence, our sovereignty, our sweat and all that we fought
for. -- Robert Mugabe, OSS supporter and advocate for freedom. COLA advocate."

Re: IBM says *NO* to open sourcing DB2

Hadron wrote:
> Rick writes:
>
>>
>> And just what lies did the Linux advocats tell regarding IBM possibly
>> Open Sourcing DB2?
>
> Do your own homework Rick. Google is your friend. If you can figure out
> how to use it.
>
> --
> "True. Due to a lack of competition, there essentially have been no
> improvements to Microsoft's operating system and office software. It
> just works." -- High Plains Thumper
> in comp.os.linux.advocacy

Well, well, finally Hadron admits to the truth by quoting me, how sweet of
him. The saga continues:

On 27 February 2008, the EU fined Microsoft an additional €899 million
(US$1.4 billion) for failure to comply with the March 2004 antitrust
decision. This represents the largest penalty ever imposed in 50 years of
EU competition policy. This latest decision follows a prior €280.5
million fine for non-compliance, covering the period from June 21, 2006
until October 21, 2007.[20] On 9 May 2008 Microsoft lodged an appeal in
the European Court of First Instance seeking to overturn the €899
million fine, officially stating that it intended to use the action as a
"constructive effort to seek clarity from the court".[21]